AFCCA Case Report: U.S. v. Haggart (6/24/20)

7/1/2020

In March 2017, Haggart had sexual intercourse with 15-year-old “AN,” after the two met on Tinder. Haggart denied knowing who AN was during an investigation conducted by the Air Force. Sometime after, Haggart began a non-physical relationship with another minor, “AW.” Haggart’s commander issued orders directing Haggart to have no contact with AW. However, Haggart disobeyed and communicated with AW through his friend via email. Haggart was confined in the Bibb County Jail for 55 days before being transferred. A Military judge found Haggart guilty of one specification of false official statement, one specification of failure to obey a lawful order, and one specification of sexual assault of a child, in violation of 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 907, 920b.

Haggart raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the military judge abused her discretion by refusing to admit evidence of other sexual behavior by AN; (2) whether the military judge abused her discretion when she permitted AW to testify while wearing a high school softball uniform; and (3) whether the conditions of Haggart’s post-trial confinement were cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment and 10 U.S.C. § 855.

(1) Mil. R. Evid. 412
Haggart moved to admit evidence of sexual behavior by AN with other adult men, arguing it was constitutionally required in order to demonstrate AN misrepresented herself as being 18 years old. Under Mil. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C), evidence of other sexual behavior by an alleged victim is constitutionally required and “must be admitted...when it is relevant, material, and [its] probative value...outweighs the dangers of unfair prejudice.” United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314, 317 (C.A.A.F. 2011). The Court found that the fact other adult men may have engaged in sexual intercourse with AN did not negate Haggart’s blameworthiness.

(2) AW’s Softball Uniform
Haggart argued that the military judge abused her discretion by allowing AW to testify in her softball uniform because it highlighted her age which was not to be considered. Under R.C.M. 801(a)(2), (3), “The military judge may...prescribe the manner...in which the proceedings may take place.” “The military judge should prevent unnecessary waste of time and promote the ascertainment of truth.” Id.
The Court found that the military judge “plainly” did have a reason to admit AW to testify in her uniform—to avoid wasting time. The uniform did not affect the substance of her testimony nor did it interfere with the ascertainment of truth.

(3) Confinement
Haggart’s clemency memorandum complained about his confinement’s conditions (including the claim that "in 55 days he was allowed to shower only five times and allowed to change clothes only four times"), but his testimony conflicts with that of “JL,” a lieutenant assigned to the Bibb County Jail (who clarified that inmates receive three showers a week). The Court found that Haggart failed to demonstrate a violation of the Eighth Amendment or Article 55, UCMJ, under United States v. Lovett, 63 M.J. 211, 215 (C.A.A.F. 2006). The Court stated that even if Haggart’s testimony was correct, the conditions described were not so severe as to constitute a denial of necessities.

Holding
Affirmed. Approved sentence: dishonorable discharge, confinement for 6 months, forfeiture of all pay/allowances, reduction to E-1 and a reprimand.

Shlomo Amar

Intern

6 Comments

Brenner M. Fissell

7/1/2020 09:35:38 am

1. This seems like a pretty light sentence compared to civilian practice.

2. I'm no expert in running a prison but three showers per week seems like too few...

Scott

7/1/2020 10:41:42 am

Agree, sentence (At least as far as confinement goes) seems light

7/1/2020 11:02:21 am

Here is law that would apply. Minimum 1 year sentence (unless accused falls within the romeo and juliet provision--we don't know his age but he was an E-3)

(a) A person commits the offense of statutory rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years and not his or her spouse, provided that no conviction shall be had for this offense on the unsupported testimony of the victim.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of statutory rape shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years; provided, however, that if the person so convicted is 21 years of age or older, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years. Any person convicted under this subsection of the offense of statutory rape shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.
(c) If the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of statutory rape is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-6-3 (West)

Don Rehkopf

7/3/2020 12:12:14 pm

I'm assuming that the above is the entire opinion of the Court as I couldn't find a link to the case on the Court's website. There is a major problem lurking here - did the defense assert a mistake of fact defense as to age, especially where the facts show that she misrepresented her age? If so, the MJ (and AFCCA) were plainly wrong about the evidence of her engaging in sexual activity with other "adults," as that reasonably could tend to support the accused's belief she was "of age." The case arose in George where the age of consent is 16 - so how close to 16 was she?

The sentence, imho, was "high," but most likely due to the FOS and disobeying the order offenses. Under the facts as presented, in my jurisdiction, the DA wouldn't even put it into the Grand Jury unless the defense insisted - it would be pled out to a misdemeanor due to her misrepresentation of her age, which might trigger a "No Bill" on a mistake of fact defense.

7/3/2020 03:19:45 pm

Don, we found the opinion on "Court Listener":

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4763474/united-states-v-haggart/

7/6/2020 05:28:40 pm

Thanks, and indeed there is more:
" the Defense sought to admit evidence that AN had met other adult men in addition to Appellant over social media, and had engaged in sexual relationships with other adult men. The Defense contended such evidence was constitutionally required in order to demonstrate AN misrepresented herself as being 18 years old to Appellant and others, in support of a potential defense of mistake of fact on Appellant’s part. The Defense further contended this evidence would be required for sentencing in order to “accurately contextualize” the charged sexual assault of a minor, because AN’s other sexual experiences would be relevant to rebut any implications that Appellant “preyed” on AN or conducted their relationship without her active participation. The government and AN—through her Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC)—opposed the motion."

Here's the link to the complete opinion, which raises another common issue, was there a hearing before they "closed" the courtroom?
https://afcca.law.af.mil/content/afcca_opinions/cp/haggart_-_39601.u.pdf

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

CAAFlog

AFCCA Case Report: U.S. v. Haggart (6/24/20)

Shlomo Amar

Leave a Reply.

Archives